United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.2d 350 · 1980
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Nelson (1983), United States v. Bates (1990)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · United States v. Dinitz · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These items show that defense counsel not only did not object to the order of mistrial, but affirmatively indicated his understanding that there could and would be a retrial. This is enough to constitute implied consent. Because Smith, through counsel, impliedly consented to the mistrial, and the need for the mistrial did not arise from any prosecutorial or judicial overreaching, the double jeopardy clause does not bar retrial. See Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23, 32 , 97 S.Ct. 2141, 2146 , 52 L.Ed.2d 80 (1977).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Until the jury was actually excused, the court might have reconsidered its intention to declare a mistrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. White“Defense counsel did not object to the order of mistrial, despite adequate opportunity to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.